lÓpez, m.; yÁÑez, a.; gomes da costa, s.; avellÀ, l ... · madrid 29-30 | 09 | 2014 more...

LÓPEZ, M.; YÁÑEZ, A.; GOMES DA COSTA, S.; AVELLÀ, L., (Coord.). Actas del Congreso Internacional de Eficiencia Energética y Edificación Histórica / Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings (Madrid, 29-30 Sep. 2014). Madrid: Fundación de Casas Históricas y Singulares y Fundación Ars Civilis, 2014. ISBN: 978-84-617-3440-5

Edited by

Fundación de Casas Históricas y Singulares

Fundación Ars Civilis

Coordinated by

Mónica López Sánchez. Fundación Ars Civilis

Ana Yáñez Vega. Fundación de Casas Históricas y Singulares

Sofia Gomes da Costa. Fundación de Casas Históricas y Singulares

Lourdes Avellà Delgado. Fundación Ars Civilis

© Copyright

2014. Texts: the respective authors (or their employers); Proceedings: the coordinators and editors.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014

More contents on http://energyheritage.wordpress.com/

International Conference ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS

- 5 -

TTaabbllee ooff ccoonntteennttss

PRESENTACIÓN ............................................................................................................... - 11 -

Eficiencia energética y edificación histórica: un reto del presente..................................... - 13 - Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines y Mónica López Sánchez. Fundación Ars Civilis

Eficiencia energética y edificación histórica: un reto del futuro ........................................ - 14 - Ana Yáñez Vega. Fundación de Casas Históricas y Singulares

Committees .................................................................................................................... - 15 -

Programme ..................................................................................................................... - 16 -

Governance, management, participation and mediation..........................................- 21 -

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ACTION FOR WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ............................ - 22 - RONCHINI, C.; POLETTO, D.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND URBAN RENEWAL OF A UNESCO-LISTED HISTORICAL CENTER: THE CASE OF PORTO .......................................................................................... - 38 -

SANTOS, Á.; VALENÇA, P.; SEQUEIRA, J.

HISTORICAL HERITAGE: FROM ENERGY CONSUMER TO ENERGY PRODUCER. THE CASE STUDY OF THE ‘ALBERGO DEI POVERI’ OF GENOA, ITALY .................................................. - 45 -

FRANCO, G.; GUERRINI, M.; CARTESEGNA, M.

IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN HISTORIC CORNISH BUILDINGS – GRANT FUNDING, MONITORING AND GUIDANCE ........................................................................ - 61 -

RICHARDS, A.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND BUILDINGS WITH HERITAGE VALUES: REFLECTION, CONFLICTS AND SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................ - 75 -

GIANCOLA, E.; HERAS, M. R.

PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA PARA LA REHABILITACIÓN SOSTENIBLE DEL PATRIMONIO CONTEXTUAL EDIFICADO. EL CASO DEL CENTRO HISTÓRICO DE LA CIUDAD DE MÉRIDA, YUCATÁN / Methodological proposal for the sustainable rehabilitation of context heritage building. The case of the historic downtown of Merida, Yucatan ............................................................................................................. - 82 -

MEDINA, K.; RODRÍGUEZ, A.; CERÓN, I.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 6 -

Traditional and technological knowledge: concepts, techniques, practices, uses,

materials, methodologies ........................................................................................- 99 -

SUSTAINABLE REFURBISHMENT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS: RISKS, SOLUTIONS AND BEST PRACTICE .............................................................................................................. - 100 -

HEATH, N.

EFICIENCIA ENERGÉTICA Y VALORES PATRIMONIALES. LECCIONES DE UNA INVESTIGACIÓN Y UN SEMINARIO / Energy efficiency and heritage values. Lessons of a Research and a Seminar ............................................................................................. - 110 -

GONZÁLEZ MORENO-NAVARRO, J. L.

ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THE CASE STUDY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA .......................................................... - 118 -

LUCCHI, E.; GAREGNANI, G.; MATURI, L.; MOSER, D.

HISTORIC BUILDING ENERGY ASSESSMENT BY MEANS OF SIMULATION TECHNIQUES ..... - 135 - SOUTULLO, S.; ENRIQUEZ, R.; FERRER, J. A.; HERAS, M. R.

DESIGN OF A CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN A WALL-HEATED CHURCH: SANTA MARIA ODIGITRIA IN ROME ................................................................. - 145 -

MANFREDI, C.; FRATERNALI, D.; ALBERICI, A.

EXEMPLARY ENERGETICAL REFURBISHMENT OF THE GERMAN ACADEMY IN ROME "VILLA MASSIMO" ........................................................................................................ - 160 -

ENDRES, E.; SANTUCCI, D.

SISTEMA MÓVIL INTEGRADO PARA LA REHABILITACIÓN ENERGÉTICA DE EDIFICIOS: LÁSER 3D, TERMOGRAFÍA, FOTOGRAFÍA, SENSORES AMBIENTALES Y BIM / Integrated mobile system for building energy rehabilitation: 3D laser, termography, fotography, environmental sensors and BIM .................................................................................... - 169 -

SÁNCHEZ VILLANUEVA, C.; FILGUEIRA LAGO, A.; ROCA BERNÁRDEZ, D.; ARMESTO GONZÁLEZ, J.; DÍAZ VILARIÑO, L.; LAGÜELA LÓPEZ, S.; RODRÍGUEZ VIJANDA, M.; NÚÑEZ SUÁREZ, J.; MARTÍNEZ GÓMEZ, R.

CONSECUENCIAS CONSTRUCTIVAS Y ENERGÉTICAS DE UNA MALA PRÁCTICA. ARQUITECTURAS DESOLLADAS / Energy and constructive consequences of a bad practice. Skinned architectures ..................................................................................... - 186 -

DE LUXÁN GARCÍA DE DIEGO, M.; GÓMEZ MUÑOZ, G.; BARBERO BARRERA, M.; ROMÁN LÓPEZ, E.

EL BIENESTAR TÉRMICO MÁS ALLÁ DE LAS EXIGENCIAS NORMATIVAS. DOS CASOS. DOS ENFOQUES / Thermal comfort beyond legislation. Two examples. Two approaches ................................................................................................................... - 201 -

DOTOR, A.; ONECHA, B.; GONZÁLEZ, J. L.

LA MONITORIZACIÓN Y SIMULACIÓN HIGROTÉRMICA COMO HERRAMIENTA PARA LA MEJORA DEL CONFORT, PRESERVACIÓN Y AHORRO ENERGÉTICO DE ESPACIOS PATRIMONIALES. EL CASO DE LA IGLESIA DE SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS, MORÓN DE LA FRONTERA / Measurement and hygrothermal simulation model, a tool to enhance thermal comfort, preservation and saving energy of heritage site. Case study: the church of San Francisco of Asís in Morón de la Frontera ................................................. - 210 -

MUÑOZ, C.; LEÓN, A.; NAVARRO, J.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 7 -

TERESE3: HERRAMIENTA INFORMÁTICA PARA LA EFICIENCIA ENERGÉTICA MEDIANTE LA SIMULACIÓN CALIBRADA DE EDIFICIOS / TERESE3: informatic tool for the energetic efficiency through the calibrated simulation of buildings ............................................... - 226 -

GRANADA, E.; EGUÍA, P.; MARTÍNEZ, R.; NÚÑEZ, J.; RODRÍGUEZ, M.

EFICIENCIA ENERGÉTICA Y ANÁLISIS TÉRMICO PARA SISTEMAS DE AIRE CENTRALIZADO: UN CASO DE ESTUDIO / Energy Efficiency and thermal analysis for centralized air heating systems: a case study ................................................................. - 238 -

MARTÍNEZ-GARRIDO, M. I.; GOMEZ-HERAS, M.; FORT, R.; VARAS-MURIEL, M. J.

ANALISIS ENERGETICO DEL MUSEO DE HISTORIA DE VALENCIA MEDIANTE DISTINTAS HERRAMIENTAS DE SIMULACIÓN / Energy assessment of the History Museum of Valencia using various simulation tools ......................................................................... - 249 -

TORT-AUSINA, I.; VIVANCOS, J.L.; MARTÍNEZ-MOLINA, A.; MENDOZA, C. M.

APROVECHAMIENTO SOLAR PASIVO EN LA RETÍCULA URBANA DE LA CIUDAD HISTÓRICA. EL CASO DE CÁDIZ / Passive solar gains in the urban grid of the historic city. The case study of Cadiz .......................................................................................... - 257 -

SÁNCHEZ-MONTAÑÉS, B.; RUBIO-BELLIDO, C.; PULIDO-ARCAS, J. A.

TECHNICAL SYSTEM HISTORY AND HERITAGE: A CASE STUDY OF A THERMAL POWER STATION IN ITALY ......................................................................................................... - 275 -

PRETELLI, M.; FABBRI, K.

ANALISIS ENERGÉTICO Y PROPUESTAS DE MEJORA DE UNA CASA EN REQUENA MEDIANTE PROGRAMAS DE SIMULACIÓN / Energy analysis and improvement proposal of a house in Requena (Spain) using simulation software ................................. - 281 -

TORT-AUSINA, I.; VIVANCOS, J.L.; MARTÍNEZ-MOLINA, A.; MENDOZA, C. M.

UNA REVISIÓN DE PUBLICACIONES EN EDIFICIOS DESDE EL ASPECTO ENERGÉTICO / A review of papers in buildings from the energetic perspective ......................................... - 292 -

TORT-AUSINA, I.; MARTÍNEZ-MOLINA, A.; VIVANCOS, J.L.

MORTEROS MIXTOS DE CAL Y CEMENTO CON CARACTERÍSTICAS TÉRMICAS Y ACÚSTICAS MEJORADAS PARA REHABILITACIÓN / Lime-cement mixture with improved thermal and acoustic characteristics for rehabilitation ................................... - 303 -

PALOMAR, I.; BARLUENGA, G.; PUENTES, J.

NEAR ZERO ENERGY HISTORIC BUILDING. TOOLS AND CRITERIA FOR ECOCOMPATIBLE AND ECOEFFICIENT CONSERVATION .............................................................................. - 318 -

BAIANI, S.

INTEGRANDO RENOVABLES EN LA CIUDAD HEREDADA: GEOTERMIA URBANA / Integrating renewable in the inherited city: urban geothermal ....................................... - 329 -

SACRISTÁN DE MIGUEL, M. J.

ANÁLISIS Y PROPUESTAS DE MEJORA DE LA EFICIENCIA ENERGÉTICA DE UN EDIFICIO HISTÓRICO DE CARTAGENA: ANTIGUO PALACIO DEL MARQUÉS DE CASA-TILLY / Analysis and proposals for improving the energy efficiency of a historical building in Cartagena: the former Palace of the Marquis of Casa-Tilly ............................................. - 344 -

COLLADO ESPEJO, P. E.; MAESTRE DE SAN JUAN ESCOLAR, C.

REHABILITACIÓN ENERGÉTICA DE EDIFICIOS DE VIVIENDAS BAJO EL PLAN ESPECIAL DE PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO URBANÍSTICO CONSTRUIDO EN DONOSTIA-SAN SEBASTIÁN / Building energy retrofit of dwellings under the special plan of urban built heritage protection in Donostia-San Sebastian ....................................................... - 357 -

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 8 -

MARTÍN, A.; MILLÁN, J. A.; HIDALGO, J. M.; IRIBAR, E.

IS TEMPERIERUNG ENERGY EFFICIENT? THE APPLICATION OF AN OLD-NEW HEATING SYSTEM TO HERITAGE BUILDINGS ................................................................................. - 366 -

DEL CURTO, D.; LUCIANI, A.; MANFREDI, C.; VALISI, L.

TERMOGRAFÍA INFRARROJA Y EDIFICIOS HISTÓRICOS .................................................... - 380 - MELGOSA, S.

SIMULATION MODEL CALIBRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF REAL USE HISTORIC BUILDINGS .................................................................................................................... - 388 -

ENRÍQUEZ, R.; JIMÉNEZ, M.J.; HERAS, M.R.

THE THERMOPHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF TECHNICAL ELEMENTS IN THE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE: EXPERIENCES IN PALERMO .................................................... - 397 -

GENOVA, E.; FATTA, G.

ENERGY EVALUATION OF THE HVAC SYSTEM BASED ON SOLAR ENERGY AND BIOMASS OF THE CEDER RENOVATED BUILDING ............................................................ - 407 -

DÍAZ ANGULO, J. A.; FERRER, J. A.; HERAS, M. H.

Legal and technical regulation and historic buildings ............................................. - 419 -

OLD BUILDING, NEW BOILERS: THE FUTURE OF HERITAGE IN AN ERA OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................... - 420 -

JANS, E.; ICOMOS, M.; KOPIEVSKY, S.; AIRHA, M.

HISTORIC WINDOWS: CONSERVATION OR REPLACEMENT. WHAT'S THE MOST SUSTAINABLE INTERVENTION? LEGISLATIVE SITUATION, CASE STUDIES AND CURRENT RESEARCHES ................................................................................................................. - 432 -

PRACCHI, V.; RAT, N.; VERZEROLI, A.

ENERGY RETROFIT OF A HISTORIC BUILDING IN A UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE: AN INTEGRATED COST OPTIMALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................ - 450 -

TADEU, S.; RODRIGUES, C.; TADEU, A.; FREIRE, F.; SIMÕES, N.

PARQUE EDIFICADO O PATRIMONIO EDIFICADO: LA PROTECCIÓN FRENTE A LA INTERVENCIÓN ENERGÉTICA. EL CASO DEL BARRIO DE GROS DE SAN SEBASTIÁN / Built Park or Built Heritage: Protection against energy intervention. The case of Gros district of San Sebastian ................................................................................................ - 464 -

URANGA, E. J.; ETXEPARE, L.

SIMULTANEOUS HERITAGE COMFORT INDEX (SHCI): QUICK SCAN AIMED AT THE SIMULTANEOUS INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT EVALUATION FOR PEOPLE AND ARTWORKS IN HERITAGE BUILDINGS ............................................................................. - 478 -

LITTI, G.; FABBRI, K.; AUDENAERT, A.; BRAET, J.

PROBLEMÁTICA DE LA POSIBLE CERTIFICACIÓN ENERGÉTICA CON CE3X DEL PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTÓNICO: EL CASO DEL ALMUDÍN DE VALENCIA / Difficulties found in the possible energy certification of heritage by using the CE3X software: the case of El Almudín of Valencia ....................................................................................... - 495 -

CUARTERO-CASAS, E.; TORT-AUSINA, I.; MONFORT-I-SIGNES, J.; OLIVER-FAUBEL, E. I.

PROTOCOL FOR CHARACTERIZING AND OPTIMIZING THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS: CASE STUDY OF POZUELO DE ALARCÓN MUNICIPALITY ................... - 506 -

RUBIO, A.; MACÍAS, M.; LUMBRERAS, J.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 9 -

Promotion, training, education .............................................................................. - 513 -

THE WORK OF THE SUSTAINABLE TRADITIONAL BUILDINGS ALLIANCE AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDANCE WHEEL FOR RETROFIT ............................................. - 514 -

MAY, N.; RYE, C.; GRIFFITHS, N.

TRAINING OF EXPERTS FOR ENERGY RETROFIT AT THE FRAUNHOFER CENTRE FOR THE ENERGY-SAVING RENOVATION OF OLD BUILDINGS AND THE PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS AT BENEDIKTBEUERN .............................................................................. - 528 -

KILIAN, R.; KRUS, M.

SPECIALIZED ENERGY CONSULTANTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ............................ - 535 - DE BOUW, M.; DUBOIS, S.; HERINCKX, S.; VANHELLEMONT, Y.

RENERPATH: METODOLOGÍA DE REHABILITACIÓN ENERGÉTICA DE EDIFICIOS PATRIMONIALES / RENERPATH: Methodology for Energy Rehabilitation of Heritage Buildings ....................................................................................................................... - 543 -

PERÁN, J. R. ; MARTÍN LERONES, P.; BUJEDO, L. A.; OLMEDO, D.; SAMANIEGO, J.; GAUBO, F.; FRECHOSO, F.; ZALAMA, E.; GÓMEZ-GARCÍA BERMEJO, J.; MARTÍN, D.; FRANCISCO, V.; CUNHA, F.; BAIO, A.; XAVIER, G.; DOMÍNGUEZ, P.; GETINO, R.; SÁNCHEZ, J. C.; PASTOR, E.

LEVANTAMIENTOS ARQUITECTÓNICOS EN EL MEDIO RURAL / Architectural surveys in rural areas .................................................................................................................... - 553 -

HIDALGO, J.M.; MILLÁN, J. A.; MARTÍN, A.; IRIBAR, E.; FLORES, I.; ZUBILLAGA, I.

AUTHORS INDEX .................................................................................................... - 567 -

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014

More contents on https://energyheritage.wordpress.com/


- 478 -

SSIIMMUULLTTAANNEEOOUUSS HHEERRIITTAAGGEE CCOOMMFFOORRTT IINNDDEEXX ((SSHHCCII)):: QQUUIICCKK

SSCCAANN AAIIMMEEDD AATT TTHHEE SSIIMMUULLTTAANNEEOOUUSS IINNDDOOOORR

EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL CCOOMMFFOORRTT EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN FFOORR PPEEOOPPLLEE

AANNDD AARRTTWWOORRKKSS IINN HHEERRIITTAAGGEE BBUUIILLDDIINNGGSS

LITTI, G.; FABBRI, K.; AUDENAERT, A.; BRAET, J.

LITTI, G.: EMIB Lab, Applied Engineering Laboratory for Sustainable Materials, Infrastructures and Buildings, Antwerp University. Antwerp - Belgium

FABBRI, K.: Architecture Department, Boulogne University. Boulogne - Italy AUDENAERT, A.: EMIB Lab, Applied Engineering Laboratory for Sustainable Materials, Infrastructures and Buildings,

Antwerp University / Department Engineering Management, Antwerp University. Antwerp - Belgium BRAET, J.: Department Engineering Management, Antwerp University. Antwerp - Belgium

ABSTRACT

The problem related to keep a given indoor climate quality in historic buildings, especially with museum

functions or with housed exhibitions, is still an open international scientific debate.

The double aim of ensuring optimal microclimate quality for artworks preservation, as well as

hygrothermal acceptability for visitors and officers, was often difficult to be achieved due to the tight and

steady limits proposed within standards and regulations. However, more recent evolution of people comfort

theory based on ranges of adaptation or percentage of satisfaction may allow ranges of simultaneous

comfort for people and artworks.

Within the proposed study, by considering the priority of preserving artworks and building material

integrity, it is investigated the leaning of people in lowering their own comfort expectations if - for

preservations needs - specific microclimate conditions have to be ensured.

Furthermore a simultaneous index of microclimate performance is proposed and experimented in the city

of Antwerp (Belgium), during a monitoring campaign in a historic monumental building. The SHCI is a

simplified index of performance based on the aggregation of the most driving thermo physical and

physiological parameters referred to the indoor quality evaluation.

The index might be considered during quick evaluation procedures aimed at assessing and certifying the

building microclimate quality in museum and historic buildings. The SHCI has been elaborated on the basis of

the current European standards with regards to indoor environmental quality evaluation and heritage

buildings preservation. Te index proposed aims at bridging the gap between people and building

microclimate comfort needs.

Key words: Heritage buildings, quick scan of indoor environmental quality, thermal comfort

questionnaires, comfort simultaneous index

1. INTRODUCTION

The proposed study is part of an ongoing research granted by IWT (Belgian Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology) and made by Antwerp University, EMIB Lab[i] in cooperation with Antwerp Municipality, City management - public real estate - restoration projects Department[ii]. This contribution presents intermediate results out of a dual-aimed ongoing study in Vleeshuis Museum[iii], a public municipal museum located in the historic centre of Antwerp. Since the research is still ongoing, the results discussed in the contribution may be

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 479 -

updated during further investigations. A complete overview of the research outcomes will be hence delivered in successive contributions.

2. MICROCLIMATE IN HERITAGE BUILDINGS

In the following paragraphs an overview of the different approaches for the indoor environmental quality evaluation, with regards to people and artworks microclimate comfort, will be made.

2.1. MICROCLIMATE FOR PRESERVATION

Before the acknowledgment of the theories related to the historic climate [1][2], an extremely stringent microclimate management approach was ensured in heritage buildings and museums [3]. This approach, largely supported by Thomson [4], was based on a rigorous microclimatic building control, and it was aimed at maintaining strict Temperature (T) and Relative Humidity (RH) thresholds independently from the museum boundary conditions [4][5]. The high energy running cost for maintaining such microclimate conditions on the one hand, and the influence of these steady indoor climate conditions on the envelope building materials integrity on the other hand, have raised the debate on the real feasibility and effectively of such museum microclimate management control [6].

The international debate about the optimal compromise between safe Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) and acceptable energy consumption in heritage buildings and museums, started in the '80s when the first critiques to the totally controlled

[iv] microclimate strategy emerged [6]. The reaction to the mentioned unsustainable microclimatic management led to sporadic attempts in diminishing the hygrothermal requirements stringency. Private institutes or public collections adopted own protocols for managing the microclimate control, or developed new methodologies for IEQ assessment and certification [7][8][9][10].

The consideration of acceptable ranges of variability instead of exclusive values is a de facto condition which admits categories of hygrothermal comfort instead of unique theoretical comfort threshold for artworks preservation. Nevertheless, there is still no agreement on the approach for defining the aforementioned classes.

The substantial different approach with regards to the indoor environment categories definition or allowable deviation ranges, across the European and north American Countries, points out the lack of a common vision on the microclimate management in heritage buildings.

Beside the American ASHRAE guidelines, which propose thermo- hygrometric control classes based on the HVAC systems typology and usage, the European EN 15757 proposes an approach starting from the building microclimate itself, admitting the assumption for which the historic climate[v] has to be preferred instead of theoretical levels of quality [11][12].

According to the reasonable assumption for which no single environment satisfies requirements for all objects, it has no sense to maintain narrow environmental conditions already knowing that not all the microclimate expectations can be achieved. Therefore if fragile artworks have to be shown, it might be the case of guarding them in glass showcases. Although showcases drawbacks have been widely documented by Camuffo et al. in [13], they may reveal a cost-effective solution for tightly controlling small air volumes instead of the whole exhibition or storage volume. The implementation of this solution ensures safer microclimate control and reduction of museum installations operational costs [7].

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 480 -

However, the energy improvements, as well as the maintenance of given microclimate conditions for exhibits preservation have to be combined with the microclimate required for ensuring building envelope integrity and people comfort in a multi criteria design approach [14]. Therefore a preparatory assessment aimed at simultaneously investigating the different levels of the building performance may be supportive for a holistic design approach.

2.2. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR PEOPLE COMFORT

The Indoor Comfort Quality (ICQ) is generally defined as the combination of different satisfaction levels: thermal comfort, lighting comfort, acoustic comfort and air quality. It is considered as the psychological condition in which the person is satisfied about the surrounding environment [15]. A total environmental comfort is reached only if the multiple levels of comfort are simultaneously fulfilled. However it might happen that the comfort is only partially accomplished. If a person experiences thermal neutrality but in the same while annoyance due to a strong glare, it may be possible to evidence his/her good thermal comfort but certainly not his/her good lighting comfort.

With the purpose of evaluating and certifying the thermal comfort, two Standards have been delivered by the European Technical Committee: The EN 7730 and the EN 15251.

The EN 7730, was developed on the tracks of Fanger's studies [16][17]. It is based on a predicted percentage of satisfaction of the thermal quality. This percentage calculated by using an aggregate statistical indicator[vi] PMV (Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied), can deliver a positive or negative score according to the typology of thermal deviation from the neutral sensation[vii].

Critiques to the PMV when used for not HVAC equipped buildings, were highlighted due to the tendency of the PMV of overestimating the warm discomfort in mild climates. The lack of physiological adaptability parameters as well as the lack of direct relation between outdoor temperature and indoor comfort were found as the biggest causes of this overestimation [18][19][20].

A research carried out by de Dear et. al. [21] stressed the importance in considering different expectation levels whether people are in fully HVAC equipped buildings or in free running buildings. This research concluded that as the expectations level would change, also the thermal comfort perception would change accordingly.

Indeed the comfort tolerance of people in non HVAC equipped buildings was found far higher than the one of people in air conditioned environments, this clearly emphasized the unsuitability of PMV model for free running buildings. Although the PMV model was revised and extended by Fanger in [22], a new Standard for thermal evaluation of not mechanically controlled environments, EN 15251, was introduced [23][20]. Beside the thermal comfort, the latter Standard may be used for providing a complete indoor environmental building certification[viii] [23]. Since the Standard background encompasses the studies made by Humphreys, Nicol, de Dear, the relation between outdoor temperature and the indoor thermal comfort [18] as well as the time considered driving factor for indoor comfort temperature evaluation are taken into account. [20].

Less standards, with regards to lighting, acoustic and air quality comfort requirements, have been published by the European technical committee. However insights on the recommended luminance values to be maintained for satisfying people lighting comfort are provided by the EN 12464.2002 and recalled in Annex D, Table D.1 in the EN15251. Moreover criteria for measuring the optimal light exposure for artworks are delivered by [24][25]. The EN 15251 also provides

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 481 -

typical ranges of sound pressure for fulfilling the acoustic comfort in several building typologies, Annex E, Table E.1 in [23].

The air quality can be evaluated by following the proposed methodology in the EN 13779. This procedures allows to assess the air quality considering the ventilation rate given by the air mass balance equation. The rate is straightforward calculated by comparing the current CO2 concentrations in the indoor space and the ones outdoor.

Another air quality certification methodology is suggested by the EN 15251. The CO2 indoor concentrations plotted against the outdoor ones, allows the classification of the indoor air quality based on maximum concentration above the outdoor one; Table B4, Annex B in [23].

2.3. BALANCING THE MICROCLIMATE QUALITIES

The balance between people comfort expectations and objects microclimate requirements, is the unsolved aspect that has to be framed when delivering strategies for IEQ improvement and energy running cost reduction in heritage buildings and museums [26].

The current dichotomy between Standards aimed at assessing and certifying the indoor thermal comfort with regards to people [17][23], and those with regards to artworks [12], causes the missing of clear hierarchy to be followed when evaluating the whole IEQ of heritage buildings and, moreover, when HVAC systems have to be designed.

Within the EN 15757 draft, delivered in 2008, a specific paragraph aimed at overcoming this unsolved conflict was introduced. Although in 2010 it was omitted, within the definitive version, the need of taking into account people comfort elasticity

[ix] when peculiar microclimate

requirements have to be ensured, was for the first time considered at a legislative level [12].

In the omitted paragraph[x] is stated: "(...) People may feel uncomfortable at lower temperature

levels compatible with the needs for conservation. In such case a compromise should be found

between the two needs. For example staff and visitors may tolerate relatively low temperature

during short visiting times, if they are suitably clothed"

The quoted paragraph would have based the environmental control management on the heritage first approach

[xi] as defined by K. Fabbri et al. in [27].

A more adaptive people thermal comfort, may allow not only a wider simultaneous overlap between people and objects hygrothermal comfort requirements, but also a sensible reduction of energy running costs during the whole life span of the building thanks to the reduction of the installations set points [28].

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The presented study wants to propose a quick scan methodology for microclimate evaluation of heritage buildings, by introducing an aggregated index of performance (SHCI). People and objects indoor comfort can be therefore simultaneously studied[xii].

As the proposed scan is based on a stepwise evaluation, it may be possible to break down the index results, either if outliers are found, or if more detailed evaluations are required.

As already described, the people thermal adaptability plays a driving role in the future heritage building environmental management, therefore the second aim of this contribution is to report the results of a Test Questionnaire survey aimed at investigating the people adaptive behaviour in heritage contexts.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 482 -

Although the results refer to a questionnaire verify (Test-Questionnaire), with a extremely reduced amount of data[xiii], it is possible to start an investigation on the willingness of visitors in adjusting their own thermal comfort expectations when peculiar microclimatic requirements should be maintained.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to achieve the discussed aims, the research methodology is developed according to the below discussed interrelated activities.

4.1. CONTINUOUS INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING MONITORING

The indoor energetic-environmental instrumental monitoring[xiv] in the Vleeshuis Museum is still ongoing in each building storey; however in this paper, the solely results about the exhibition spaces are discussed.

Image 4.1.1. Indoor climate station for the global

environmental control in the main exhibition room

Image 4.1.2. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Luminance

data loggers in the main exhibition room

Image 4.1.3. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Luminance

data loggers in the basement exhibition room

The aims of this long term monitoring campaign are: to obtain an image of the building hygrothermal behaviour, to evaluate the installations performance throughout the storeys, to control the microclimate quality for artworks preservation and people comfort, to evaluate the passive building behaviour under controlled weather conditions and to figure out eventual building envelope failures affecting the indoor climate and energy consumption.

In order to give a punctual response to the aforementioned research questions, the continuous monitoring of selected environmental variables, has been accompanied by: technical surveys to the heating and lighting systems, geometrical inspection and infrared assessment of the building envelope (EN 13187), and blower door tests (EN 13829). No destructive techniques were performed during the monitoring campaign.

The physical parameters constantly monitored in each building floor are: Dry Bulb Temperature (Tdb); Relative Humidity (RH), Dew Point Temperature (Tdew); Humidity Mixing Ratio (Mr). The loggers have been hanged on supports, specifically designed for avoiding direct heat exchange with surrounding surfaces (see Image 4.1.1-3).

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 483 -

Nevertheless extra parameters are monitored in the main exhibition hall where concerts and events are regularly housed. In this space a global indoor environmental control station has been positioned (see image 4.1.1) and the following parameters have been continuously registered: Incident Power Asymmetry (Tax, Ipwax), Operative Temperature (Top), CO2 concentration (CO2), Illuminance (E), Air velocity (Avel) and Radiant Temperature (Trad).

4.2. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SUBJECTIVE INDOOR COMFORT EVALUATION IN HERITAGE BUILDINGS

Despite a general consciousness in considering the people thermal perception strongly influenced by adaptive conditions (See 2.2), studies on the incidence of different adaptive approaches in diverse social contexts, are not yet amply published.

A research made by M. Indraganti on occupants in Indian dwellings, reported the high correlation between the level of thermal adaptation and the people socio- economical status, namely different thermal empathy

[xv] [29]. From the face to face surveys was argued that the respondents, in average, may tolerate a thermal comfort band far different from the one proposed by the Indian legislation.

Such a study evidences the urgency in investigating more in depth the adaptive people capabilities in the built environment; especially in heritage buildings and museums where, by implementing the adaptive approach, it may be possible widening the simultaneous comfort zone for people and artworks. Furthermore, a variation of the installations set points can enable a significant energy use reduction.

The questionnaire for the spontaneous evaluation of the indoor comfort [xvi] is distributed to the museum visitors in the tickets office, then it is returned to the same office once the visit is ended. The questionnaire, available in English and Dutch, is systematized in 24 questions according to the following order and topics:

4.2.1. Heritage comfort

The first questionnaire section is aimed at evaluating the adaptation visitor capability. Theoretical microclimatic variations, justified by preservation needs, are hence proposed for testing the respondent tolerance level. This section starts by asking if there are any conditions affecting her/is experiencing of the artworks. Whether yes, it is required to tick which discomfort is causing annoyance, among: lighting, acoustic and thermal discomfort.

Further, the respondent is questioned on her/his comfort tolerance level. More in details, she/he is asked which kind of discomfort she/he is more willing to tolerate among: temperature decreasing and increasing and humidity increasing and decreasing. The answers range between tolerance to: no variation, slight and consistent variation.

4.2.2. Informative questions

The second section is aimed at gathering personal information. The respondent is asked to fill in, above all: age (five thresholds), educational level (four thresholds) and dress code (ticking a graph code according to the ISO 9920[xvii]). To verify whether the subject is able to detect the running hygrothermal conditions, it is asked to guess temperature and humidity levels.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 484 -

4.2.3. Thermal, Acoustic and Lighting comfort

The third sections is focussed on the subjective thermal comfort evaluation. The answerers tare ordered according to Annex H, Methodologies for subjective evaluations, in [23]. The thermal quality is firstly assessed on the basis of the current thermal perception and possible thermal discomforts; further the thermal expectations are investigated, and finally, a general thermal comfort evaluation is asked in a simplified evaluation scale (three thresholds).

The fourth and fifth sections are referred to acoustic and lighting comfort. The methodology for the comfort evaluation throughout these two last sections is the same as the methodology above referred.

4.2.4. Global comfort

The last section is meant as a summary of all the previous questions; statistically it provides a proof for measuring the consistency of the previous independently evaluated sections. The global comfort includes the concept of simultaneous evaluation, indeed, it imposes a focus not anymore on specific comfort but on a wider wellbeing condition.

4.3. DEFINITION OF A SYNTHETIC INDICATOR (SHCI) FOR FACILITATING THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY QUICK ASSESSMENT IN HERITAGE BUILDINGS

The Simultaneous Heritage Conservation Index (SHCI) is calculated as aggregation of scores for

each environmental performance indicator , with regards to different indoor environmental

parameters , such as: Temperature (T), Relative Humidity (RH), Luminance (E) with regards to artworks comfort evaluation and CO2 and PMV with regards to people environmental comfort evaluation.

Additional or less parameters, hence performance indicators, may be considered according to the assessment aims and data availability. The SHCI is a supportive tool for quick scan of microclimate quality in existing and heritage buildings[xviii]. If abnormal SHCI values are found, the aggregated index may be broken down in order to find the discomfort causes (see 4.3.2). In this contribution an brief application of the methodology is proposed.

4.3.1. SHCI, THEORETICAL FORMULATION

Before describing the methodology for calculating each single indicator score, and the whole SHCI score, few considerations on the rating scale have to be evaluated. Both the European standards related to the indoor environmental people comfort evaluation (see 2.2) and the majority of standards and guidelines related to the microclimatic quality evaluation for artworks preservation, suggest categories of quality with upper and lower thresholds[xix] [23][17][25][12]. Generally these categories are concentric around the optimal value. Although they are not based on the same physical parameters, the categories from the EN 7730 and EN 15251 can be straightforward compared according to the Table 4.3, Annex A-A1 in [23].The Standard EN 7730, enables the certification of the indoor thermal quality with regards to intervals of satisfied percentage of people (PMV), the EN 15251 instead considers the same categories with regards to intervals of Indoor Operative Temperature[xx]. The category definition and the relative numerical intervals are reported in Fig. 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 485 -

Image 4.3.1.1. Table 4.3 ;Annex A-A1 EN 15251

Image 4.3.1.2. Indoor climate classification, Categories EN 15251

The categories are three, according to a threefold performance level; while a fourth category classifies values out of range. The third category (see Image 4.3.1.1) defines the indoor thermal quality as acceptable for existing buildings and its lower and upper threshold is {PMV>-0.7; PMV< 0.7}, as defined by EN 7730. As already discussed in 2.2, the PMV doesn't take into account the people adaptive behaviors. To overcome this lack, an extension to the model was already proposed by Fanger in [22]. However not transposed in the EN 7730. With the reasonable assumption for which in heritage buildings the heritage first approach should be implemented [27], and by evidencing high respondents willingness in lowering their thermal comfort expectation (if specific microclimate condition are required), it might be possible to propose an extension of the third PMV interval for heritage buildings.

Image 4.3.1.1. Hypothesized PMV increment including people adaptation in heritage buildings

Since the EN 7730, except the first category, admits a stepwise PMV increase of 0.2 for category, a proposition of 2 steps of thermal variation would mean a interval extension as reported in Image 4.3.1.1. However this increment has to be confirmed from the first Questionnaires results. With this purpose, the questions 4 and 5, Section 3.a (thermal comfort) from the Pre-Questionnaire (see 4.2.3) are below reported with their relative results.

- Question 4. If, in order to preserve the artworks, the indoor environment should be cooler, what would be your tolerance level?

- Question 5. If, in order to preserve the artworks, the indoor environment should be warmer, what would be your tolerance level?

Table 4.3.1.1. Extension of PMV third category lower limit according to Question 4, Section 3.a Questionnaire; Breakdown per age

Question 4 I do not have tolerance

(perfect comfort condition should be ensured)

I can tolerate a cooler thermal environment

I can tolerate a cold environment

Hypothesized PMV PMV - 0 (PMV -0.7) PMV - 0.2 (PMV -0.9) PMV - 0.2 (PMV -1.1)

< 18 years - - -

18-35 years 13% 38% 50%

36 – 50 years 0% 60% 40%

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 486 -

51 – 65 years 13% 63% 25%

> 65 years 10% 40% 50%

Total 10% 46% 44%

Table 4.3.1.2. Extension of PMV third category upper limit according to Question 4, Section 3.a Questionnaire; Breakdown per age

Question 5 I do not have tolerance

(perfect comfort condition should be ensured)

I can tolerate a warmer thermal environment

I can tolerate a hot environment

Hypothesized PMV PMV + 0 (PMV -0.7) PMV + 0.2 (PMV +0.9) PMV + 0.2 (PMV +1.1)

< 18 years - - -

18-35 years 19% 56% 25%

36 – 50 years 20% 80% 0%

51 – 65 years 38% 63% 0%

> 65 years 20% 70% 10%

Total 23% 64% 13%

From the Tables 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2, it is clear that respondents are more willing to accept cooler than warmer variations. Indeed by summing the contribution: cooler + cold and warmer + hot a cumulative percentage 90% against 77% is achieved.

Although a slight temperature increase is more tolerated than a slight temperature decrease (64% vs 46%), a high temperature increase is accepted by an extremely low percentage of respondents (10%) while still stays high the percentage of people willing to accept strong temperature reduction (44%)[xxi]. The hypothesized max PMV increase would have extended the third PMV threshold maximum to ±1.1, however according to these intermediate results, it is not possible to extend the PMV thresholds further than the first variation (±0.9) as a strong warm variation is accepted by less than 15% of respondents (see Table 4.3.1.2).

Further as the first PMV range in EN 7730 provides values for high expectation level, reasonably gettable in newly constructed buildings, the first and second categories have been merged. The new PMV thresholds, inclusive of willingness of people in diminishing their own comfort level, are reported in Table 4.3.1.3.

Table 4.3.1.3. New PMV categories including people comfort adaptation in heritage buildings

1 category PMV>-0.5; PMV< 0.5 High level of expectation (Heritage Buildings)

2 category PMV>-0.7; PMV< 0.7 Normal level of expectation (Heritage Buildings)

3 category PMV>-0.9; PMV< 0.9 Acceptable level expectation (Heritage Buildings)

To calculate the SHCI, each indicator rating scale has to be defined. The definition of each environmental indicator scale might be inferred by a technical standard or guideline or suggested by the exhibition curator. The definition of the rating scale for the reduced amount of indicators considered in this contribution is reported below.

- PMV rating scale

The score rating for the PMV performance indicator , is obtained by the above discussed considerations of people comfort adaptation in buildings if specific microclimatic conditions should be maintained.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 487 -

Table 4.3.1.4. Score rating for the PMV

SCORE PMV

3 PMV > 0.9

2 0.7 < PMV ≤ 0.9

1 0.5 < PMV ≤ 0.7

0 -0.5 ≤ PMV ≤ 0.5

-1 -0.7 ≤ PMV < - 0.5

-2 -0.9 ≤ PMV < - 0.7

-3 PMV < - 0.9

- Temperature rating scale

The Dry Bulb Temperature is considered, in this section, as parameter aimed at evaluating the microclimate quality for artworks preservation. The specific range of acceptability to define the indicator rating scale can be obtained by different Standard [12][25][11]. Moreover it can be acquire from direct suggestion of the collection curators. Three categories are considered with

their upper ( ) and lower limit.

, Temperature upper limit Category 1; , Temperature lower limit category 1;

, Temperature upper limit category 2; , Temperature lower limit category 2;

, Temperature upper limit category 3; , Temperature lower limit category 3;

Although the thresholds can be changed according to the needs, it is suggested to consider categories concentrically ranged around the optimal value. The latter is valid for each indicator rating scale definition.

Table 4.3.1.5. Score rating for the T

SCORE T

3 T >

2 < T ≤

1 < T ≤

0 ≤ T ≤

-1 ≤ T <

-2 ≤ T <

-3 T <

- Relative Humidity rating scale

The Relative Humidity follows the same consideration as . Below the Table for Relative Humidity score rating. Similarly to the Temperature, three Relative Humidity categories are

considered with their upper and lower limit.

Table 4.3.1.6. Score rating for the RH

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 488 -

SCORE RH

3 RH >

2 < T ≤

1 < T ≤

0 ≤ T ≤

-1 ≤ T <

-2 ≤ T <

-3 T <

- Light Intensity rating scale

Light intensity E (Luminance), in this section, is considered as parameter aimed at evaluating the microclimate quality for artworks preservation. Suggested E maximum levels are reported in [25][24]. However specific uniformity criteria are reported in Paragraph 2.2, Conservation

parameters for exposure to light sources; pag.23 in [24]. The mentioned criteria are below reported and considered within the calculation.

The score scale for this indicators corresponds to deterministic values {0 in compliance, 1 not in compliance}. Beside light intensity levels, also E fluctuation plays an important role for avoiding

damage by light exposure. and define acceptable light intensity fluctuations.

Table 4.3.1.7. Score rating for the

SCORE E1

1 Emin/Eave < 0.5

0 Emin/Eave > 0.5

Table 4.3.1.8. Score rating for the

SCORE E2

1 Emax/Emin > 5

0 Emax/Emin < 5

4.3.2 SHCI, MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

Each single indicator performance, with regards to each environmental parameter, is calculated as below:

(1)

with:

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 489 -

where:

Equation (1) calculates the performance for each indicator. It is obtained by the module of the summation of each partial contributions: parameter score by its duration score.

, is the score obtained with regard to the specific indicator rating scale. It is within a minimum and maximum interval ranging from the lower to the higher scale score.

, is the amount of time (expressed in hours) in which the relative score is obtained. It is within a minimum and maximum interval ranging from 0 to the entire assessed time period;

By knowing the indoor environmental parameters (therefore the indicators) to be included in the calculation of the SHCI and their score, it can be easily calculated the SHCI as a global score average, by considering the equation (1).

(2)

where = amount of considered performance indicators

The SHCI is therefore calculated as the average of the indicators scores. It has to be pointed out that, since the SHCI of an optimal environment should result zero, the lower (in absolute value) the index scores, the more performing the environment is.

As the score for each indicator is given by the product between a rating and a time interval

({ ), and since within the rating interval negative figures may be included, the absolute value of the product is considered to avoid flattening phenomena.

The evaluation of the incidence of each single index on the whole SHCI score, allows the assessment of the specific deviation. The mentioned incidence, for each indicator xi, may be calculated as below:

=

(3)

5. CASE STUDY

For giving a SHCI example of application, a short period of five days (from 15 to 20 July 2014) will be considered in this contribution. It is out from the aims of this paper to provide an indoor climate quality assessment for the Vleeshuis Museum since 5 days are not significant for a microclimatic analysis. However later results will be published with more extended applications of the proposed methodology.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 490 -

5.1. MICROCLIMATE MANAGEMENT IN VLEESHUIS MUSEUM

Since the Vleeshuis Museum has an open exposition configuration, the variety of the different exposed objects imposes the use of showcases for protecting the most sensitive artworks or musical instruments. Less prestigious or oversized objects are exposed, in the same exhibition rooms under uncontrolled microclimate.

A centralized heating system with radiators is the solely existing installation; the lack of a regulation subsystem do not allow any climate adjustment: It is only possible to bypass the single radiator if the indoor temperature has to be lowered.

Further, as the building has punctual and movable de/humidifiers, it is possible to move them from a room to another when required. Obviously this humidity control strategy does not allow a homogeneous control, and the detected humidity problems, may even be increased [2]. No cooling system or mechanical ventilation are installed; indeed, since the building works completely in free running throughout a long period of the year, the thermal comfort, a part form the heated period, falls in the adaptive regime [29][23].

The musical instrument permanent collection is housed in two of the five storeys of the building. The rest of the building is mainly used as office and artworks storage, but neither in the exhibition spaces nor in the storages, an automatized indoor environmental monitoring system[xxii] is installed. There is only an outdated system for controlling Temperature and Relative Humidity. Currently the microclimate quality and unforeseen abrupt microclimate variations cannot be immediately checked out and fixed by the museum keepers. This implies that the potential discomfort to the artworks, due to improper indoor microclimate condition or sharp thermo hygrometric variations, might be discovered after a long time period.

The Temperature (T) and Relative Humidity (RH) data, registered by the data loggers positioned in the museum, are withdrawn and read out by the exhibition curator on a regularly basis. But, although this operation is iterative, it does not occur each month since the data processing, without a clear and straightforward methodology, is extremely long and time-consuming. Often this snapshot procedure of microclimate control increases the short Temp-Relative humidity fluctuations, namely the damage risk for the artworks and building materials [2]. This aforementioned situation is not rare in case of historic buildings and small museums without an automated building management system.

5.2. RESULTS DISCUSSION

The indicators considered in this paper are:

- PMV for assessing the people thermal comfort;

- Temperature, Relative Humidity, Light Intensity for assessing the artworks comfort.

Before calculating the index scores, the Temperature and Relative Humidity thresholds have been defined in accordance with the suggestions of the exhibit curator. PMV and E intervals are already reported in 4.3.2.

Temperature: Category 1 {20-21°C}; Category 2 {19-24°C}; Category 3 {18-24°C }

Relative Humidity: Category 1 {50-60%}; Category 2 {45-65%}; Category 3 {40-70%}

The procedure for the single index score calculation follows equation (1). Once all the indicator

scores are calculated, considering the score intervals and the time

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 491 -

frequency , the SHCI as pondered summation of all the indicators can be calculated from equations (2) and (3). In the reported example, SHCI= 1.09 is obtained. Since as reported in 4.3.2, the optimal microclimate value is 0, the obtained value shows an evident deviation from the optimal indoor climate conditions.

By following the equation (4) it is possible to breakdown the value in order to evaluate each Indicator incidence on the general result.

Table 5.2.1. Indicators incidence

SHCI

1.09 2.16 1.47 0.23 0.517

Incidence 49% 34% 5% 12%

From table 5.2.1 is possible to see how the Temperature - when considered for the artworks preservation - plays almost the 50% of index failure. The rest of indicators are less impacting on the entire result. But to get more details on the score deviation, it is necessary to breakdown the SHCI.

In Table 5.2.2, an overview of the score frequency for each Indicator is plotted. It is possible to observe the large compliance of PMV and Light Intensity with the optimal values of performance (score 0) and Relative Humidity within safe value of performance (score ±1, ±2). However the Temperature considered as separate indicator for artworks thermal comfort, is sensibly shifted in the positive scores. This shows a warm discomfort, out from the safety range (score 3).

Table 5.2.2. Score frequency for single Indicator

-3 -2 -1 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 TEMPERATURE

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.5% 22.9% 46.6% RELATIVE HUMIDITY

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 51.69% 47.46% 0.00% PMV

5.17% 10.34% 15.52% 68.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LIGHT INTENSITY

E1 0 1 80.50% 19.50%

E2 96.60% 3.40%

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES

A simultaneous index of performance for quick scan indoor climate evaluations is delivered. The SHCI can be implemented as stepwise methodology for certifying the indoor climate in heritage buildings, where it is necessary to simultaneously evaluate the people and collections microclimate quality. Possible deviations from the given microclimate optimal conditions can be easily detected for a prompt intervention.

The research is being revised with the aim of introducing weighting criteria for each indicator, in order to respond to specific conservation needs.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Hans Goossens, Karel Moens, Theo Denijs and Elio Litti for their kind support during the research.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 492 -

8. REFERENCES

[1] B. D. Camuffo, “Church Heating : A Balance between Conservation and Thermal Comfort Problems with Central Heating,” no. April, pp. 1–23, 2007.

[2] D. Camuffo, “Microclimate for Cultural Heritage.” Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 298–314, 1998.

[3] A. Luciani, “Historical climates and conservation environments. Historical perspectives on climate control strategies within museums and heritage buildings,” Politecnico di Milano, 2013.

[4] G. Thomson, The Museum Environment, 2nd Edition, Butterwort. Butterworths series in conservation and museology, 1986, p. 293.

[5] N. S. Bromelle, G. Thomson, and P. Smith, “Conservation within historic buildings: preprints of the contributions to the Vienna congress,” in Conservation within historic buildings, International

Congress, 1980, pp. 7–13.

[6] A. Grimoldi, “Protection of ‘movable’ property, protection of ‘immovables’ indoor climate; some conflicts to overcome,” in Indoor environment and preservation, climate control in museums and

historic buildings, Nardini, Ed. Milan, 2011, pp. 19–26.

[7] M. F. Mecklenburg, C. S. Tumosa, and A. Pride, “Preserving legacy buildings,” ASHRAE J., pp. S18– S23.

[8] S. Weintraub, “The museum environment: trasforming the solution into a problem,” J. museum Arch.

Prof., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 195–218, 2006.

[9] N. Blades, H. Jessep, and K. Lithgow, “The role of historic house heating systems in collections climate control at the National Trust,” in Climate fo r collections | standards and uncertainTies | Munich 2012, 2013.

[10] J. Frick, M. Reichert, G. Baumbach, S. Song, A. Neuwirth, M. Kruger, M. Schmitt, J. Huber, M. Ebermann, L. Pockele, A. Khanlou, A. Ekonomakou, J. Balau, G. M. Revel, M. Arnesano, and F. Pietroni, “Monitoring and Improvement of Indoor Environments in Cultural Heritage,” in 3 rd European

Workshop on Cultural Heritage Preservation, EWCHP 2013, 2013, pp. 243–249.

[11] S. Michlski, “The ideal climate, risk management, the ASHRAE Chapter, proofed fluctuation, and toward a full risk analysis model,” in Roundtable on Sustainable Climate Management Strategies, 2007, pp. 1–19.

[12] European Commitee for Standardization, “EN 15757 Conservation of Cultural Property-Specifications for temperature and relative humidity to limit climate- induces mechanical damage in organic hygroscopic materilas,” no. January, 2010.

[13] D. Camuffo, G. Sturaro, and A. Valentino, “Showcases : a really effective mean for protecting artworks ?,” vol. 365, pp. 65–77, 2000.

[14] G. Building and C. Italia, “Gbc historic building,” 2013.

[15] C. S. P., M. Gamerio da Silva, A. R., A. E., C. J.J., M. Filippi, K. J., M. A. K., O. B. W., P. Z., and W. P., Indoor Climate Quality Assessment: Evaluation of indoor thermal and indoor air quality, REHVA Guid. Federation of European Heating and Air-Conditioning Associations, REHVA, 2011.

[16] P. O. Fanger, Analysis and application in environmental engineering. New York, 1970.

[17] CEN European Commitee for Standardization, EN 7730 Ergonomics of the thermal environment —

Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD

indices and local thermal comfort criteria, vol. 2005. 2005.

[18] H. M. A., “Outdoor temperature and comfort indoor,” Build. Res. Pract., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 92–105, 1978.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 493 -

[19] F. Sicurella, G. Evola, and E. Wurtz, “A statistical approach for the evaluation of thermal and visual comfort in free-running buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 47, pp. 402–410, Apr. 2012.

[20] J. F. Nicol and M. A. Humphreys, “Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings,” vol. 34, pp. 563–572, 2002.

[21] R. de Dear, B. G., and C. D., “Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference,” USA, 1997.

[22] P. O. Fanger and J. Toftum, “Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates,” vol. 34, pp. 533–536, 2002.

[23] CEN, EN 15251:2007. Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy

performance of buildings- addressing indoor air quality , thermal environment , lighting and acoustics

Contents. 2007, pp. 1–52.

[24] L. De Santoli, M. Filippi, and M. Mariotti, IEE Indoor Environment Engineering in Cultural Heritage. Saarbrucken, Germany, 2010.

[25] C. T. I. CTI, UNI 10829.1999, Works of art of historical importance, Ambient conditions for conservation,

Measurement and Analysis. Italy, 1999.

[26] M. La Gennusa, G. Lascari, G. Rizzo, and G. Scaccianoce, “Conflicting needs of the thermal indoor environment of museums: In search of a practical compromise,” J. Cult. Herit., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 125–134, Apr. 2008.

[27] K. Fabbri and M. Pretelli, “Heritage buildings and historic microclimate without HVAC technology: Malatestiana Library in Cesena, Italy, UNESCO Memory of the World,” Energy Build., vol. 76, pp. 15–31, Jun. 2014.

[28] E. L. Krüger and W. Diniz, “Relationship between indoor thermal comfort conditions and the Time Weighted Preservation Index (TWPI) in three Brazilian archives,” Appl. Energy, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 712–723, Mar. 2011.

[29] M. Indraganti, B. Arch, M. T. Iitd, and D. Ph, “Thermal Adaption and impediments : Findings from a field study in,” 2010, no. April, pp. 9–11.

[30] E. Lucchi, Diagnosi energetica strumentale degli edifici. Termografia e analisi non distruttive.

Normativa e procedure operative. Palermo (Italy), 2012, p. 368.

[31] I. Standard, Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Estimation of thermal insulation and water

vapour resistance of a clothing ensemble. International, 2009.

9. NOTES

i. EMIB Lab Energy and Materials in Infrastructure and buildings.

ii. Research coordinator in the Restoration Project Department: Arch. Hans Goossens.

iii. Museum Vleeshuis: Klank van de stad: 600 jaar muziek en dans in de Stad (Melody of the city: 600 years of music and dance in the city).

iv. With totally controlled microclimate the authors mean, the microclimate control strategies based on a strict control of hygrothermal parameters as proposed by Thomson; cit. A. Grimoldi in [6]

v. Historic climate defined as Climatic condition in a microenvironment where a cultural heritage object has always been kept, or has been kept for a long period of time (at least one year) and to which it has become acclimatized; in EN 15757:2010; Terms and definitions, pp 5.

vi. The indicator takes into account physical parameters with regards to the environment (internal temperature, air velocity, humidity, mean radiant temperature) and parameters related to the occupants (activity level and thermal clothing resistance).

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 494 -

vii. A negative value expresses deviation towards colder temperatures, while a positive one expresses a deviation toward hotter temperatures calculated on the basis of the thermal neutrality (comfort condition) assumed as zero.

viii. The Standards is meant for the Indoor Environmental Quality complete certification; therefore not only the thermal comfort.

ix. People comfort elasticity: slight variation of comfort expectations thresholds.

x. Paragraph 5.5.2 Heating for thermal comfort versus conservation needs; pp 8; Draft 15757, version 2008; deliverable online at http://www.aq.upm.es/Departamentos/Construccion/recopar/v2/es2/docs/prEN_15757.pdf

xi. Heritage first approach: the comfort priority is given to the preservation of buildings, artefacts, etc. instead of comfort for people; in [27].

xii. This study doesn't want to replace any standard-based procedure.

xiii. For the questionnaire Pre-Test 40 questionnaires have been collected throughout different periods of the year.

xiv. Instrumental energetic- environmental building diagnosis as defined by E. Lucchi in Tools and Techniques for Energy Diagnosis (Strumenti e tecniche di diagnosi energetica), pp 37 in [30].

xv. Thermal empathy as defined by M. Indraganti: the attitude of people in exploiting all the possible adaptive opportunities before using high energy intensive environmental controls, pp 1 in [29].

xvi. In the Questionnaire not only the thermal comfort has been taken into account.

xvii. ISO 9920.2007 Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Estimation of thermal insulation and water vapour resistance of a clothing ensemble; [31].

xviii. If the SHCI is used for non heritage buildings, the amount of performance indicators only includes those with regards to people environmental comfort.

xix. For instance: the EN 15251 suggests Operative Temperature values taking into account a superior and inferior limit with regards to four categories of quality. The same approach is followed by the EN 7730 for the PMV evaluation. Similarities with this category- rating order, are in the majority of guidelines and standard related to artworks preservation, such as the Italian UNI 10829.1999 or the EN 15757.

xx. The Indoor Operative Temperature is calculated based on the Outdoor Mean Running Temperature.

xxi. The test-questionnaire results might differ from the definitive questionnaires results.

xxii. This is a common situation in historic buildings with mixed functions or not completely converted and used as museums.

MADRID 29-30 | 09 | 2014



- 573 -

lÓpez, m.; yÁÑez, a.; gomes da costa, s.; avellÀ, l ... · madrid 29-30 | 09 | 2014 more...

Documents